Worcester acting like it's loaded

Monday

Nov 25, 2013 at 6:00 AMNov 25, 2013 at 6:04 AM

By Clive McFarlane

Some Worcester residents might be feeling the pinch of an economy that is still supporting an unemployment rate above 7 percent, a job market that is spitting out mostly minimum-wage and part-time jobs, and a business climate that is producing more worry than stability in people's lives.

At Worcester City Hall, however, the recession is a thing of the past; belt-tightening is passe, and largesse is back in vogue.

How do I know this?

Well, how else do you explain the following?

•After thumbing its nose at a $200 million investment from a casino mogul, an investment that could have led to the underwriting of a full-service hotel, Worcester officials went after one of the city's most reliable downtown businessmen and taxpayers.

Apparently, the Midtown Mall and its owner, Dean Marcus, do not fit well with the city's downtown, billion-dollar makeover.

"The landlord treats the property like an oversized trash can," City Councilor Rick Rushton said last month.

"It's dirty, it's filthy and its rundown. He has a complete lack of respect for the progress that is going on around him."

The Midtown Mall might not be the most aesthetically pleasing building downtown, but it is swollen with business tenants who are grateful that Mr. Marcus has afforded them space at affordable prices. The Mall is assessed at $2.9 million, and Mr. Marcus pays the city about $100,000 a year in taxes.

In contrast, a number of the buildings next to the Mall, although seemingly in better condition than the mall, are largely unoccupied. Lack of occupancy, however, seems to be a better deal than having a full, working mall. Only officials sitting on city coffers flush with cash would think that way.

•Police Chief Gary Gemme believes Worcester can improve public safety with ShotSpotter technology, a system that uses audio devices and video cameras to help police respond to gunshots. Initially, the city had proposed using CSX mitigation money to install the devices in a 3-square-mile area in the Grafton Hill, Shrewsbury Street and Canal District neighborhoods.

The cost was estimated at $434,300 over three years. Last week, however, the City Council unanimously voted to spend $424,000 of taxpayer money to expand the ShotSpotter coverage area to Main South, South Worcester, Piedmont Street and Elm Park.

These costs do not include $120,000 for 24 cameras and $30,000 to integrate the audio devices with the video cameras. Let's save the privacy issues for another day. Let's look at this strictly from an economic perspective.

Do we need to be spending $1 million a year on this technology? Keep in mind that when the CSX mitigation money runs out in three years, the full cost of the program will be on the backs of taxpayers. Chief Gemme, despite his support of the technology, acknowledged in an "As I See It," column that "Worcester is a relatively safe community, and gun violence is significantly less than in other urban areas."

But if our city coffers are flush with cash, why not spend it?

•A proposal to raise the annual salary of the part-time mayor's position from $34,000 to $58,000 is the latest sign city government no longer has a money problem.

One doesn't begrudge the mayor for wanting the position to pay more, given what the job involves, but when the city is willing to start paying part-time workers nearly $60,000 a year, it suggests its coffers are loaded.

I can't wait for City Hall's next move, which I am sure will be an announcement that it is reducing residents' taxes and fees.